When you’re hiking in the wilderness where I live in Montana, a clear path is one of the most important things to keep you from getting lost. Whether it’s an updated map at the trailhead or signs along the way, it’s very helpful if someone more knowledgeable and experienced has marked the right way, especially where false paths might appear. A clear trail can be the difference between an amazing hike to your destination and the danger that comes with getting lost in the woods.
Likewise, Nicaea and the Nicene Creed have marked a clear path for the church to confess and delight in the glory of our triune God for 1700 years. In celebration, let’s unpack the confession’s theological achievements that put us on the trail of orthodoxy.
The Crossroads
In the fourth century, the church faced a crossroads in its doctrine of God: How can we affirm there is only one God and there are three who are God?
Modalism presented the false path of unity-in-sequence: the one God appears as Father, Son, and Spirit at different times and for different reasons. These are not distinct persons but sequential modes or appearances of the divine being.
Arianism proposed the false path of unity-by-analogy: the one God became “Father” when he created the Son. While he does the work of God in the name of God, the Son does not do so as God himself.
Taking either path would have been theologically disastrous, denying that God is a real Trinity and denying that the incarnate Son really is fully God and fully man.
Taking the Path of Orthodoxy
By God’s grace, the church would take the path of unity-in-distinction: there is one God who is a Trinity of three eternally distinct persons.
The church started down the conciliar path of orthodoxy at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.[1] It was clear that the church needed a unified confession that God is three-in-one. But that would require some theological trailblazing.
1. The trinitarian form of the early church’s liturgical practices and apologetics was important but ultimately insufficient to sustain a unified confession regarding the relation and status of the Father, Son, and Spirit.
The first steps were taken in the Creed of Nicaea, where the Son’s deity was grounded in the same divine nature he shares with the Father. The creed confesses that the Son is distinct from the Father because the Son is “begotten of the Father.” Yet the Son is “not created” by the Father. Rather, the Son is “God of God,” “Light of Light,” “true God of true God,” precisely because he is “homoousios with the Father.” The Father and Son have the same (homo) nature (ousios), not merely similar (homoi) natures (ousiai).
Clearing the Path of Orthodoxy
In the decades that followed, the pro-Nicene tradition would take the church further down the path toward a full doctrine of the Trinity. That part of the church’s theological journey is fascinating. But in this article, we’ll have to content ourselves with a focus on the church’s clarification regarding how the divine persons are distinct but not separate things from the divine nature.
In short, pro-Nicene theologians developed the “person-nature distinction.”[2] We can summarize the concepts and terms in five points:
2. Especially Athanasius (ca. 295–373), Basil of Caesarea (330–379), Gregory of Nazianzus (ca. 329–389), and Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 335–395).
- (1) there is one divine nature (ousia);
- (2) the Father, Son, and Spirit are each a divine person (hypostasis);
- (3) each hypostasis is a distinct ontological who and personal subject of the one ousia;
- (4) the ousia is an ontological what, having all the divine attributes that describe what God is like;[3]
- (5) all three persons subsist in the single-same nature (homoousios) as the one true God.
3. It’s crucial to understand that there is no composition in God’s being. We can think and speak of his different attributes, like love, holiness, and omnipotence. Rather than possessing these, however, God actually is his attributes. For example, you are “loving” if you possess that quality or act in that way. But God’s very being is love. Each attribute is a perfection that describes the whole of what God is as God. In short, according to the doctrine of divine simplicity, God is each and the sum total of all the divine perfections and there are no real divisions, parts, or composition within the divine nature.
It should be obvious at this point that the definition of person as a hypostasis is very different from our common use of “person,” which usually refers to a complete human being. Regarding the Trinity, however, the pro-Nicenes used person as one aspect of the complete divine being, which was crucial for making sense of the person-nature distinction.
Accordingly, the whole being of God is three divine persons (who God is) in the one divine nature (what God is). As a hypostasis, a person is an ontological subject that provides existence to a nature and subsists in it. As an ousia, a nature is a substance that exists in a person.[4] So, while they’re distinct and inseparable, person and nature are not different substances or things. And in God, where there are three persons in the same nature, the ousia is not apportioned or divided among the hypostases but exists fully in each.
4. We say that the persons “subsist in” the nature because that’s their ontological location as the personal subjects (hypostases) of the nature. We say that the nature “exists in” the persons because that’s its ontological location by means of each person giving existence to the complete divine substance (ousia). Of course, none of this places spatial limitations on God, who is immaterial and infinite. But that’s a whole other article, or more.
Simply put, the person-nature distinction recognizes that God is a person-nature being. Each divine person is a subject/self/“I” who is fully and equally God precisely because each person subsists fully and equally in the one divine nature without division or partition.
Confessing God as Trinity
By the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD, the term “Trinity” had become a regular part of the pro-Nicene tradition, largely based on the person-nature distinction. This new council gathered to confirm that was the meaning of the earlier creed.
The result was the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, what we today (thankfully!) refer to as the “Nicene Creed.” The Father and Son are still presented as distinct persons in whom the church professes faith. And they are still “homoousios,” only now with the firm clarification that this means the Son is God in exactly the same way the Father is God, which is possession of the single-same divine nature/ousia.
Moreover, the same is true of the Spirit, whom we believe in and who shares the name “Lord” with the Son, who “proceeds from the Father and the Son,” and who is “worshipped and glorified together with the Father and the Son.” Even without using homoousios, the new creed affirms that everything in that term is true of the Spirit.
In short, the path of unity-in-distinction led the church to confess the unique glory of God as the Trinity in the Nicene Creed according to the person-nature distinction: God is three hypostases in one ousia. It was this “Nicene faith” that became the church’s orthodox confession of God for 1700 years.
Staying on the Path of Orthodoxy
Taking the correct path to the Trinity was crucial for the truth and coherence of the church’s worship and witness. And it kept the church from getting lost in heresy and error that would deny that God is who he says he is.
For the same reasons, it’s imperative that we stay on the right path and keep it clear for future generations. And to do that, we need to recognize the special importance of the person-nature distinction for orthodox Trinitarianism and beyond.
The Person-Nature Distinction and the Trinity
The church could not have followed the Nicene path to confess the truth of the Trinity without the person-nature distinction. Or by switching metaphors to emphasize the point, we can say it’s the linchpin of orthodoxy regarding the ontology of God. Without the distinction, the confession that the one true God is three persons in one nature falls apart.
Simply put, the particular use of hypostasis and ousia forged on the trail of orthodoxy is the main linguistic-conceptual reason why the church has enjoyed the richness of knowing, trusting, and rejoicing in the Father, Son, and Spirit as the one true God who works all things for our good and his glory.
Thus, to stay on the trail of orthodoxy, the church must maintain the person-nature distinction in all aspects of our doctrine of God.
For example, the early church affirmed that God’s works are inseparable precisely because the Father, Son, and Spirit each act through the one divine nature. And regarding recent Trinitarian debates, it’s important to recognize that the Father sending the Son and Spirit does not introduce hierarchy or submission within God himself because the three persons still possess the one divine nature equally, which includes the one divine will and the same divine authority.
The Person-Nature Distinction and Christ
The church faced another crossroads in the fifth century regarding how the incarnate Son can be both divine and human. The false path of Nestorianism gave Christ two natures to be divine and human, but it couldn’t hold these together in one person. The false path of Eutychianism taught that Christ has only one nature that is somewhat divine and somewhat human.
Yet at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, the church stayed on the path of orthodoxy by extending the person-nature distinction from God to God the Son incarnate. The Chalcedonian Definition confesses that Christ is one person in two natures. The one person is the divine person of the Son. The two natures are the divine nature he has always shared with the Father and Spirit, and a complete human nature (body and soul) that the Son added to himself.
In short, for over 1500 years, orthodox Christology has used the person-nature distinction to confess that Christ is a person-nature being.[5] The person of the Son is fully God according to his divine nature. And he is fully man according to his human nature.
5. For an excellent treatment, see Stephen J. Wellum, God the Son Incarnate (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016).
Like with the Trinity, the particular use of hypostasis and ousia extended along the trail of orthodoxy is the main linguistic-conceptual reason why the church has been able to rejoice and rest in the finished work of Christ that reconciles God and man in the God-man.
Thus, to stay on the trail of orthodoxy, the church must maintain the person-nature distinction in all aspects of our doctrine of Christ.
For example, the early church affirmed that Christ has a divine will and a human will precisely because the person of the Son has both a divine nature and a human nature after his incarnation. And in our own time, it’s important to recognize that the Son’s kenosis (emptying, Phil 2:7) to become a complete man did not make him any less God (ontologically or functionally) because he still subsists fully in the divine nature that cannot change, including all the divine attributes.
The Person-Nature Distinction and Other Doctrines
The church would be lost in darkness and danger without the Spirit leading it along the path of orthodoxy. That’s certainly true for the doctrines of God and God the Son incarnate. But it’s crucial to remember that all of our doctrines are interconnected, and they’re ultimately grounded in the Trinity and the person and work of Christ.
Thus, to stay on the trail of orthodoxy, the church must maintain the person-nature distinction in all of our doctrines in relation to the Trinity and Christ.
As one example, think of our doctrine of man. What are we as human beings? Most of us would say that we’re a body and soul. But remember that the body and soul assumed at the incarnation is the human nature of Christ, which is only part of what makes him a human being. Orthodoxy defines the man Jesus Christ as the person of the Son in a human nature. Anything else would make him less than completely human. And the early church extended the person-nature distinction from God to God the Son incarnate to make that clear.
So, I would suggest that the path of orthodoxy leads us to extend the person-nature distinction further into anthropology. If Christ is the man and like us in every way (except sin), then his person-nature being should define what it means to be human. You can read more about that here and here. But for now, I’ll just say that we’re more than a body and soul because Christ is more than his body and soul. Whereas Christ is a divine person in a human nature, each of us is a human person in a human nature. And that has massive implications for human identity, dignity, and destiny.[6]
6. See Michael A. Wilkinson, Crowned with Glory and Honor (Lexham Academic, 2024).
Conclusion
The point I want to leave us with is this: The Nicene Creed with its person-nature distinction is an extraordinary gift of God through the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit. He has used it to lead the church along the path of orthodoxy to see the most glorious truths of who God is and what he has done for our good and his glory. Let us pray for the strength and wisdom to stay on that path and keep it clear for those coming behind us.
